5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Economy
Unions Decry Spanberger Veto of Collective Bargaining Bill as ‘Betrayal to Virginia's Workers’
“We believed that she was being authentic and honest with us," said one Virginia labor leader. "She just flat-out flipped."
May 15, 2026
Labor unions are feeling betrayed after Virginia's Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger vetoed a bill on Thursday that would have restored collective bargaining rights for half a million public sector workers.
Virginia is one of the most restrictive states in the country for public sector bargaining, a holdover from the Jim Crow era when the General Assembly and other state legislatures across the South sought to crush the power of a public workforce with many Black employees.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, Virginia has one of the largest public sector pay gaps in the country, with state and local government employees making about 27% less on average than their private-sector peers, and it is similarly stratified in other states with weak collective bargaining rights.
Spanberger, a former US representative who was elected governor this past November, made pro-union messaging central to her affordability-focused platform. She decried President Donald Trump's executive order stripping federal workers of collective bargaining rights last year and said that as governor, she'd "look forward to working with members of our General Assembly to make sure more Virginians can negotiate for the benefits and fair treatment that they earn.”
But since taking office, Spanberger's support for restoring public sector union rights has been more tepid as she's gotten an earful from fiscally conservative Right-to-Work and taxpayer advocacy groups who claimed higher salaries for public employees would drain state funds and raise the cost of services.
When a bill to immediately mandate collective bargaining rights to 500,000 workers was proposed in the Democratic-controlled General Assembly, she introduced amendments aimed at watering down the bill—making it optional for employers to recognize unions, delaying the full implementation until 2030, and introducing what unions called a "kill-switch" that would have allowed future governors to revoke collective bargaining power.
The legislature shot Spanberger's amendments down and passed the bill in its original form. On Thursday, the governor vetoed it altogether.
In her veto message, Spanberger said she wanted the bill's other collective bargaining provisions for state employees, home care workers, and higher education employees to go into effect first "in order to demonstrate the efficacy of this new system" before it was opened up to all public employees.
But the unions that advocated for the bill say Spanberger led workers on with false promises.
"This veto is a devastating betrayal to the hundreds of thousands of public employees who have spent years, and in many cases decades, fighting for a seat at the table," said Doris Crouse-Mays, the president of the Virginia AFL-CIO. "Spanberger campaigned publicly and privately on promises [of] affordability, to support working families and respect workers' rights... Instead, when presented with the opportunity to make history and deliver on those promises, she chose to side with fear, political calculation, business, and the same anti-worker arguments that have been used for generations to deny workers power in Virginia."
LaNoral Thomas, the president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Virginia 512—a union which helped lead the charge to pass the bill—told the Virginia news site Dogwood that her union had "high hopes" for Spanberger when she was elected.
“We believed that she was being authentic and honest with us," Thomas said. "She just flat-out flipped. It is shocking.”
"Public employees are not a special interest. They are our neighbors. They are the educators, bus drivers, social workers, librarians, custodians, and first responders who hold our communities together," said a joint statement from Carol Bauer, president of the Virginia Education Association, and Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association.
They emphasized that the veto also carried "a deep racial and gender impact," noting that "Virginia’s public sector bargaining ban is rooted in a Jim Crow era effort to silence Black workers at the University of Virginia Hospital who organized for fair pay and dignity." They said, "Preserving that legacy today disproportionately harms women and workers of color, who make up so much of the public-service workforce and who have the most to gain from fair wages, safer workplaces, and a real voice on the job."
Lee Saunders, the president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)—the largest national union of public sector workers in the US, with more than 1.4 million members—said that Spanberger had caved to "anti-worker extremists [who] have sidelined working people while starving the public services Virginia families rely on, earning the state a reputation as one of the most anti-worker in the country."
"While the governor has broken her word," Saunders said, "AFSCME members are deeply grateful to the bill’s sponsors and the leadership of both chambers, who kept theirs. Their commitment to working people stands in stark contrast to the governor and will not be forgotten."
"Gov. Spanberger made a choice today," he added. "Working people will remember it."
Keep Reading
Show Less
From Gas to Groceries, Rural Americans Paying Heaviest Price for Trump's Iran War
A Center for American Progress analysis found that the war is "forcing rural households to pay at least $26 more per week at the pump and threatening to push grocery prices even higher in the months ahead."
May 15, 2026
President Donald Trump won the 2024 election largely on a promise to alleviate the affordability crisis, but an analysis published Friday underscores how rural Americans—the bedrock of the MAGA base—are disproportionately paying the price for the US-Israeli war of choice on Iran.
"Rising gas and fertilizer prices tied to the Trump administration’s war in Iran are driving up costs for rural families, farmers, and consumers across the country," notes the analysis from the Center for American Progress (CAP), a liberal think tank.
"Gas prices rose 52% between February 27, the day before the war with Iran began, and May 14, forcing rural households to pay at least $26 more per week at the pump and threatening to push grocery prices even higher in the months ahead," the publication continues.
"The economic fallout from the conflict is disproportionately affecting rural America, where households already spend significantly more on gasoline and energy and where farm operations depend heavily on diesel fuel and fertilizer," CAP added. "As oil prices rise and shipping through the Strait of Hormuz remains disrupted, farmers are facing mounting input costs during an already difficult economic period."
CAP researchers also found that the gap between urban and rural fuel costs has increased from $46 to $70 per month since the start of the war.
With diesel fuel accounting for over 60% of their fuel expenditures, farmers are facing the prospect of paying at least $350 more per day to operate a single tractor.
"There are 453 farming-dependent counties across the country, and rising fuel and fertilizer costs could force more small and medium-sized farms out of business if disruptions continue," the analysis warns.
As Common Dreams reported this week, Trump's illegal war of choice and erratic tariff policies are hurting farmers and consumers while Big Ag profits from fast-rising fertilizer and food prices.
Likewise, while consumers feel the pain of skyrocketing pump prices, Big Oil is reaping prodigious profits fueled by scarcity and market uncertainty due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and other war-related causes.
A report published earlier this month by the office of Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) projects that US drivers could pay an additional $876 per year—or $1,753 for a family with two cars—on gasoline per year if pump prices remain at their current levels.
The CAP analysis comes on the heels of the latest consumer price index, released earlier this week, which revealed that inflation has risen to its highest level in three years largely due to rising fuel and food costs.
According to CAP, lower-income households—which spent a third of their pretax income on food in 2024—"will be hit hardest" by rising grocery prices, as the highest-income households spent just 6.4% of their before-tax earnings on food.
“Families in rural communities are already stretched thin, and this conflict is making everyday necessities even more expensive,” CAP senior fellow and analysis co-author Anne Knapke said Friday. “Higher gas prices, rising fertilizer costs, and more expensive groceries are all contributing to an affordability crisis that this president is making worse every day.”
Asked earlier this week if he thinks about the financial hardship his war is inflicting on Americans, Trump flippantly replied, "Not even a little bit."
Keep Reading
Show Less
World ‘Burning Through Oil Safety Net’ as Trump Weighs Plans to Restart Iran Assault
“You can only decrease consumption so much, and when inventories run out, they are going to run out,” said one energy industry expert.
May 15, 2026
The global energy crisis caused by President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran is set to worsen in the coming months, as The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that the world is "burning through its oil safety net."
Even though oil prices surged at the start of the war, which led Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz to commercial ships, that increase was temporarily mitigated by crude surpluses that allowed countries to add more petroleum to the market.
However, the Journal reported that those reserve stocks are being depleted at an unprecedented pace, with inventories declining by nearly 250 million barrels in just the first two months of the conflict.
This rapid drawdown has led oil executives and analysts to warn that "a harsh reckoning is set to upend the relative calm in energy markets" as "acute shortages of key fuels and soaring prices could emerge within weeks if the Strait of Hormuz remains shut," according to the Journal.
The Journal cited a report from consulting firm Eurasia Group estimating that, at the current rate of depletion, US diesel reserves are set to fall below 100 million barrels for the first time in 23 years by the end of this month.
Ellen Wald, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center, told the Journal that while the increased price of oil would be partially offset by a decrease in consumption, the sheer scale of the coming supply crunch is so big that prices will continue to spiral upward.
“You can only decrease consumption so much, and when inventories run out, they are going to run out,” Wald explained. “At some point the market is going to collide and prices are going to shoot up.”
This problem could be exacerbated further if Trump decides to renew attacks on Iran, which could lead to devastating Iranian counterstrikes on oil production facilities throughout the region.
Zeteo reported on Thursday that "preparations for an imminent new phase of Trump’s Iran war have accelerated," as the president "has grown increasingly frustrated by the state of peace talks."
According to Zeteo's sources, the US military campaign is set to ramp up shortly after Trump returns from his visit to China, with options that include "a potential massive new bombing campaign against the Iranians."
The US military bombed Iranian military targets and civilian infrastructure throughout the early weeks of the conflict, but the country has still refused to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
With peace talks stalled and the prospect of renewed hostilities on the table, the price of Brent crude futures surged on Friday, topping more than $108 per barrel.
Average gas prices in the US remained above $4.50 on Friday, and petroleum industry analyst Patrick De Haan estimated on Thursday that prices could soon jump to over $5 per gallon if the Strait of Hormuz isn't opened soon.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Platner Campaign Drills Collins for Siding With Banks in Senate Overdraft Fee Vote
"Susan Collins cares far more about protecting bank executives’ millions than protecting the rest of us from BS overdraft fees," said Platner's campaign manager.
May 14, 2026
Graham Platner's campaign is accusing Sen. Susan Collins of siding with banking interests after she joined Senate Republicans in blocking a Democratic measure to protect consumers from unexpected overdraft fees.
On Wednesday, the GOP voted largely along party lines against a set of Democratic resolutions aiming to restore Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) policies killed by the Trump administration.
In what its acting director, Russell Vought, has described as an effort to effectively dismantle the bureau, which has been credited with delivering more than $21 billion in consumer relief since its creation, he has rescinded 67 policies that protected Americans from junk fees, medical debt, lending discrimination, and other financial abuses.
One resolution voted down Wednesday would have restored a scrapped CFPB guidance against debt collectors hounding consumers over false or inflated medical debts. Another would have reaffirmed that the bureau can scrutinize financial companies for predatory credit practices aimed at military families.
These Democratic resolutions were not expected to pass in a Republican-controlled Senate, but were instead meant to force Republicans to put themselves on the record as standing against consumer interests.
As President Donald Trump takes a beating from voters on the economy, the votes will serve as ammunition as Democrats run with the message that the GOP has "abandoned consumers and is making life more expensive for them," as the CFPB's architect, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass), said on Wednesday.
Platner is already deploying that ammunition in one of November's marquee races, hammering Collins (R-Maine) for voting with the GOP against restoring a guidance enacted by the Biden administration that required banks to obtain customers' consent before charging overdraft fees for ATM and one-time debit card transactions.
"Last night, Susan Collins voted once again to make it easier for big banks to hit Maine families with predatory overdraft fees," his campaign said in an email on Thursday. "Her vote to block even a debate on restoring basic consumer protections was just the latest reminder of where Collins' real loyalties lie."
"There is no legitimate policy rationale for voting against basic consumer protections on overdraft fees,” said Platner's campaign manager, Ben Chin. “But Susan Collins cares far more about protecting bank executives’ millions than protecting the rest of us from BS overdraft fees. This vote is yet another example of this deeply unfortunate reality.”
According to data from OpenSecrets, Collins has received nearly $1.8 million this cycle in contributions from the financial sector, including more than $570,000 from private equity and investment firms, which the Platner campaign said were "among the most predatory actors in the American economy."
She's also received more than $44,000 from commercial banks and holding companies that have a particular interest in her stance on overdraft fees.
The Pine Tree Results PAC, which has thrown about $12.7 million behind Collins, likewise got nearly a third of its funding from figures in the financial sector, particularly in private equity and hedge funds with a broader interest in neutering the CFPB.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular